Author: Eran
Date: 18:36:10 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 16:21:01, blass uri wrote: >[D]1r3nk1/3rb1p1/p2p1pP1/1p2p3/Pnq1P1R1/2N1B3/1PPR3P/2NQ3K w - - 0 1 > >This position is from the ssdf games(Junior5-Junior6). >The evaluation was close to equality and suddenly Junior5 failed high and found >more than 1 pawn advantage for white. > >I post this position to demonstrate the fact that tactics is not only >sacrifices. > >Unfortunately tactical test positions are usually sacrifices. > >I am also not sure if there is only one good move for white. >White played in the game Rg2. >This is a good move with the idea to give mate by Rh4 and Qh5 but I am not sure >if this is the only good move and it is possible that axb5 and after it Rg2 also >give the same result(I did not check it) > >The point is not to find Rg2 but to find a significant change in the evaluation. > >How much do programs need to fail high? > >I think it is a good idea to generate a tactical test suite based on positions >from practical games and not based on finding sacrifices. > >In order to do it we need to analyze many games and find cases when there is a >significant change in the evaluation. > > >Uri Hiarcs 7.32 engine running under CB7 found Rdg2 instantly. Then it switched to axb5. About 5 minutes later it switched back to Rdg2 and sticked to it for about 15 minutes. The result of Hiarcs 7.32 was as follows below: Hiarcs 7.32 Depth 10/29 +-(1.59) 00:14:45 Junior6 engine running under CB7 did not find Rdg2 at all for about 15 minutes. It sticked to axb5 for too long. Also, Fritz 5 (16 bit) did not find Rdg2, it sticked to axb5 as Junior6 did. I assume positional-oriented chess programs do understand that position better than tactics-oriented chess programs do, despite the position is a tactical one with sacrifice. Eran
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.